TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms insurance premium hike, dismisses appeal challenging notification, cites statutory provisions.</h1> <h3>Kerala State Private Bus Operators Versus Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority</h3> The court upheld the authority of the 1st respondent to issue the notification regarding revised premium rates for third party liability cover for motor ... IRDA - Enhancement of the insurance premium - opportunity of hearing the petitioners/appellants - jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to issue a notification – Held that:- powers of the 1st respondent under Section 14(2)(i) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authorities Act (herein after referred to as the 'IRDA Act') and that before issuing Ext.P2, draft was published in the web site on 4.1.2011 inviting responses from the persons interested, following which there were series of discussions with Transporters Association and Insurers. As regards the enhancement, it was found that the 1st respondent had conducted studies and evolved a formula for the revision of rights based on settled parameters as set out, namely, average claims cost for each class of vehicle, frequency of claims for each class of vehicle and Cost Inflation Index for the year of review - Writ Petitions were dismissed Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to issue a notification like Ext.P22. Denial of opportunity of hearing the petitioners/appellants3. Extent of the enhancement of the insurance premiumJurisdiction of the 1st respondent to issue Ext.P2:The judgment involved appeals against the dismissal of multiple Writ Petitions challenging a notification (Ext.P2) issued by the 1st respondent regarding revised premium rates for third party liability cover for motor vehicles. The court found that the 1st respondent had the authority under Section 14(2)(i) of the IRDA Act to control and regulate rates, terms, and conditions for general insurance business. It was established that the 1st respondent's power to issue such notifications was not limited by the 2nd respondent, and the 1st respondent was the final authority in determining tariff rates. The court also noted that a previous circular by the 2nd respondent had decided not to fix tariff rates, further affirming the 1st respondent's competence in this matter.Denial of opportunity of hearing the petitioners/appellants:The judgment addressed the contention of denial of opportunity for the petitioners/appellants to be heard. The court found no merit in this argument as the 1st respondent had published the draft of the notification on their website, inviting responses from interested parties. The court highlighted that it was impractical to individually hear all affected parties nationwide, and publishing the draft for responses sufficed. Citing a previous Supreme Court decision, the court emphasized that groupwise hearings based on zones were appropriate in such cases. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioners/appellants were not denied a fair opportunity to be heard.Extent of the enhancement of the insurance premium:Regarding the extent of the enhancement of the insurance premium, the judgment detailed that the 1st respondent had considered factors like average claims cost, frequency of claims, and the Cost Inflation Index for the year of review in determining the revised rates. The court found that the revision was based on a study conducted by the 1st respondent and was a policy decision necessary for the survival of the insurance business. The court noted the absence of material to support the claim that the revised rates were exorbitant and cited previous decisions to support the conclusion that the revision was reasonable and essential for the insurance business's viability. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of Ext.P2 and the judgment under challenge.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the authority of the 1st respondent to issue the notification, rejected the claim of denial of opportunity for the petitioners/appellants, and justified the enhancement of insurance premium rates as a necessary policy decision for the insurance business's sustainability.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
